The Gambling Bill - Any chance of turning it around?

Boy, people are really steamed about Bush signing that on-line gambling bill today. I hate that congress has become so crass as to hide that bill inside the Port Security Bill. I almost wish Bush had vetoed it. The very idea of tying the two together so that anyone who didn't vote for the bill because of a difference of opinion regarding on-line gambling would be accussed of being soft on National Security. Man, will this kind of creative legislating ever end.

Did anyone see Mike Sexton, the ambassador of poker (World Poker Tour) on Fox News today? Apparently, this thing is not over yet. Reading between the lines, he is intimating that the 23 million poker players who play on-line are ready to put up a fight to get this thing turned around.

A 23 million person backlash seems to be formitable.

Does anybody think the Poker establishment can turn this around?

Mike's position is that this is an invasion of our privacy and is fearful of what other Internet restrictions will be coming as a result of this legislation.

I believe you can get around it by securing, as an example, a British IP address. Apparently, that is how the law, at least in the beginning, is going to be policed.

I know this has been tossed around a lot lately but now that it is on the legalative books it would be good to hear what people think and what they may be willing to do to change this current law.

I would like to see this overturned, but I really can't see it being done. What's done is done. I think Mike is more concerned that the Internet Poker industry - who probably pays him a FAT sum of money each year in sponsorships - is going down the tubes with this bill. I hate that this happened, because I love playing poker online. This also will have a domino effect to the rest of the poker industry....the game will lose a lot of glamour and popularity, because people won't have easy access to play whenever they want, therefore, their skills will seemingly diminish, therefore the tours will slow down, and ultimately, Sexton will lose money from the WPT being disbanded.

It was a really sneaky way to close us down...just like how the NC Lottery snuck the bill by while a couple of folks were absent that would have voted it down (not that I'm complaining about that one! )

The North Carolina Education Lottery - so much a joke that here are their mascots:

Boy, people are really steamed about Bush signing that on-line gambling bill today. I hate that congress has become so crass as to hide that bill inside the Port Security Bill. I almost wish Bush had vetoed it. The very idea of tying the two together so that anyone who didn't vote for the bill because of a difference of opinion regarding on-line gambling would be accussed of being soft on National Security. Man, will this kind of creative legislating ever end.

Did anyone see Mike Sexton, the ambassador of poker (World Poker Tour) on Fox News today? Apparently, this thing is not over yet. Reading between the lines, he is intimating that the 23 million poker players who play on-line are ready to put up a fight to get this thing turned around.

A 23 million person backlash seems to be formitable.

Does anybody think the Poker establishment can turn this around?

Mike's position is that this is an invasion of our privacy and is fearful of what other Internet restrictions will be coming as a result of this legislation.

I believe you can get around it by securing, as an example, a British IP address. Apparently, that is how the law, at least in the beginning, is going to be policed.

I know this has been tossed around a lot lately but now that it is on the legalative books it would be good to hear what people think and what they may be willing to do to change this current law.

Floridian

Floridian,

That was a good, thoughtful post. Unfortunately there is not a single Democrat or Republican president who would have vetoed that bill. (For many reasons.) Maybe a Libertarian would have, but there's not much of a chance of getting a preisdent like that in the WH.

Online gambling will never be the same again. Even if there were some kind of bill passed overturning this bill, they would never give up the chance to put some kind of government oversight, or something similar, that would make things bad.

On the positive side, the legality of gambling online has not changed at all, as far as I can tell. In reality, if the existing law continues to be interpreted as banning sports betting only, then in reality nothing has changed.

In the real world, this legislation will make lots of companies very nervous, even if it does not technically apply to them.

I think whatever happens, it will be poker players and companies that lead the charge.

That was a good, thoughtful post. Unfortunately there is not a single Democrat or Republican president who would have vetoed that bill. (For many reasons.) Maybe a Libertarian would have, but there's not much of a chance of getting a preisdent like that in the WH.

Online gambling will never be the same again. Even if there were some kind of bill passed overturning this bill, they would never give up the chance to put some kind of government oversight, or something similar, that would make things bad.

On the positive side, the legality of gambling online has not changed at all, as far as I can tell. In reality, if the existing law continues to be interpreted as banning sports betting only, then in reality nothing has changed.

In the real world, this legislation will make lots of companies very nervous, even if it does not technically apply to them.

I think whatever happens, it will be poker players and companies that lead the charge.

If the Fair Tax Act was enacted, this would not be an issue monetarily, and I suspect revenue is the thrust behind the initiative. If it's a moral issue than they should keep their morals to themselves.

To tack it onto the Port Security Bill is back room politics at its worst. The two issues are not even remotely connected. Congress takes more vacation time in one year than most of us have taken in our whole lives. They should cut down the vacation time and consider bills individually instead of bundling unrelated bills and pork projects together under a single umbrella bill.

I see this as yet another attempt diminishing Americans individual freedom to choose. These "authority figures" not only are convinced that -- somehow -- they "know better" than the average individual they are supposed to represent, but that they are somehow "higher" in their moral principles.

Mind you, and not only recently, but over the last couple decades, these "moral compasses" that passed this bill (which are supposed to be traveling on The High Road) number among their ilk, sexual predetors, embezzlers, outright thieves, possible murderers and any number of other unsavory characters. And it is all bipartisan. Neither main political party is unstained.

This is what gets elected. We need alternatives between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum on our ballots.

On the "up " side, the American citizen has always been a survivor. It remains to be seen how this law will be interpreted, and how it will be enforced. But you can bet that there will be ways around it, and they will be found. Americans do not obey laws they disagree with; and especially when they are being dictated to by those who break the laws, but who are so highly connected that they can escape unscathed.

This whole bill has nothing to do with morality. Don't kid yourself! This has to do MAINLY with these people's egos! They have been watching people in Costa Rica thumbing their noses at the dopey USA lawmakers, and this is their little revenge. It happens all the time, in many different ways.

Sadly, it's not even so much about the money. If it was about the money they would have figured out a scenario that would get the USA more money. This bill doesn't do that.

Trust me, it's the egos, plain and simple.

By the way, bills are construed in this way ALL THE TIME (like attaching it to the port bill). This is nothing new. That's why the term "pork" was developed. There is almost no bill that goes through congress that doesn't get useless and irrelevant attachments added on.

they can try to do this to internet gambling but what about child porn or just porn itself why can't they block that??????

no mike...just...no lol. I could do without the child porn, but uh *ahem*, porn has nothing to do with this topic. There are grown people here who should be free to look at or do whatever they want, and to suggest that congress do way with porn and not gambling is kind of a 2 way-street

"The happiest moment of your life will be the moment it ends...thats because it doesn't end but goes on in ways so magnificent, so full of peace - wisdom - and joy, as to make it difficult to describe and impossible for you to comprehend"

This will put the squeeze on the offshore outfits. My guess is that in a few years, the big land-based casino cos and the big credit card cos (one of which is about to go public) will get the bill amended such that all is well if none of money leaves the US banking system. Lots of people in D.C. will have shares by then. Just like the bird flu scare a couple years ago. Certain pols. had 1000's of shares in drug cos that made the recommended treatment products.

In neo-conned Amerika, bank robs you.Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store, not a govnoment agency.

no mike...just...no lol. I could do without the child porn, but uh *ahem*, porn has nothing to do with this topic. There are grown people here who should be free to look at or do whatever they want, and to suggest that congress do way with porn and not gambling is kind of a 2 way-street

I would not complain about them doing away with all or any kind of gambling if at the very same time they would also do away with porno and doing away with all kinds of porno would even be best.

"Porno", that kind of freedom I can do without.

----------------

"Prohibition" was turned around.

It is not so much that I mind their banning gambling, but that I don't like what their doing things like these might or will lead to (666).

To start with the forming of the European Union was and is a very bad sign, I keep on thinking about where all these things will lead to .

Sorry for the off topic stuff and it's repetition.

Perhaps they should make some kinds of board and also software lottery games for people to play with at home.

As to gambling, perhaps we should try our hand at stock market prediction, that could be interesting enough.

they can try to do this to internet gambling but what about child porn or just porn itself why can't they block that??????

You know, Mike, that may be a sign of something actually positive. If the govt can't stop the porn websites, even after years of them being illegal, then they likely aren't going to stop gambling either on the Net. It's really the same enforcement principle.

Elsewhere, Todd makes a good point. Even though our "revered" authority figures spout this as being a morality issue, it is our govt we're talking about. And that means it's alll about the money. When our politicians see something where they can't shove their hands deeper into our pockets, it gets them really upset. They see all those millions of dollars they can't blow on something stupid and they don't like it.

Rest assured, this thing will take some time to shake out. But when it does, there will still be gambling on the Internet. There are ways around everything, and even our pols know that. (heck, they are the biggest transgressors when it comes to taking the "way around" something)

Boy, people are really steamed about Bush signing that on-line gambling bill today. I hate that congress has become so crass as to hide that bill inside the Port Security Bill. I almost wish Bush had vetoed it. The very idea of tying the two together so that anyone who didn't vote for the bill because of a difference of opinion regarding on-line gambling would be accussed of being soft on National Security. Man, will this kind of creative legislating ever end.

Did anyone see Mike Sexton, the ambassador of poker (World Poker Tour) on Fox News today? Apparently, this thing is not over yet. Reading between the lines, he is intimating that the 23 million poker players who play on-line are ready to put up a fight to get this thing turned around.

A 23 million person backlash seems to be formitable.

Does anybody think the Poker establishment can turn this around?

Mike's position is that this is an invasion of our privacy and is fearful of what other Internet restrictions will be coming as a result of this legislation.

I believe you can get around it by securing, as an example, a British IP address. Apparently, that is how the law, at least in the beginning, is going to be policed.

I know this has been tossed around a lot lately but now that it is on the legalative books it would be good to hear what people think and what they may be willing to do to change this current law.

Floridian

Thanks to everyone who has already replied to this post. I think the responses so far have been extremely intelligent and informative. You do not have to agree with all but to be able to express oneself shows how lucky we still are to live in America. Please keep the responses coming.

A. Bush didn't mention online gambling in his press conference after the signing of the Ports Bill.

B. Roberto Gonzales, the Attorney General, has 260 days from signing the bill to devise ways to enforce it.

Frankly, I suspect Frist has embarrassed the administration with this trick and Bush and Company wish it would all go away quietly.

I also noticed that the so-called Christian right has not commented on online gambling one way or the other. This was all Frist's idea.

In a way, Frist did us a favor. This was a watered-down version of something coming out of the House that was much more damaging to the online gambling industry. It is primarily interested in online sports betting, which was illegal anway. Online lottery betting is much more obscure and it will take years to sort that out.

the bottom line here and don't let anyone tell you different is the fact that we will have a lot better chance with this if the democrats take back control of the house after elections this november.democrats will be a lot different than republicans about these kind of things.the republicans were pandering to the religious right with this crap and after the elections they won't even remember it.they were making a point and the point was made.i've read where a lot of republicans were embarrassed by the way frist did this and a lot of people kind of wished it wouldn't have happened the way it did.it was done in a very underhanded way in the middle of the night when barely anyone noticed.pretty sneaky i think.there are already democrats with bills lined up to legalize this.do a search for it on the net.until then its business as usual......